{"id":23390,"date":"2025-05-23T14:03:29","date_gmt":"2025-05-23T12:03:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/abante.de\/revocation-of-subsidies-objective-breach-of-contract-is-sufficient\/"},"modified":"2026-02-19T11:33:43","modified_gmt":"2026-02-19T10:33:43","slug":"revocation-of-subsidies-objective-breach-of-contract-is-sufficient","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/revocation-of-subsidies-objective-breach-of-contract-is-sufficient\/","title":{"rendered":"Revo\u00adca\u00adtion of sub\u00adsi\u00addies \u2014 objec\u00adtive breach of con\u00adtract is suf\u00adfi\u00adcient"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>On Decem\u00adber 11, 2023, the Giessen Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtive Court ruled (case no.: 4 K 1641\/22) that the sub\u00adjec\u00adtive ideas of the par\u00adties involved regard\u00ading com\u00adpli\u00adance with fund\u00ading require\u00adments are not rel\u00ade\u00advant. An objec\u00adtive breach of pub\u00adlic pro\u00adcure\u00adment law is suf\u00adfi\u00adcient for the revo\u00adca\u00adtion of a fund\u00ading approval. <\/p>\n\n<p>Our video dis\u00adcussing the judg\u00adment:  <\/p>\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-embed is-type-video is-provider-youtube wp-block-embed-youtube wp-embed-aspect-16-9 wp-has-aspect-ratio\"><div class=\"wp-block-embed__wrapper\">\n<iframe hcb-fetch-image-from=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/MtAyKJrY6H8\" title=\"Widerruf von F\u00f6rdermitteln \u2013 objektiver Vergabeversto\u00df reicht aus\" width=\"800\" height=\"450\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/MtAyKJrY6H8?feature=oembed\" frameborder=\"0\" allow=\"accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share\" referrerpolicy=\"strict-origin-when-cross-origin\" allowfullscreen><\/iframe>\n<\/div><\/figure>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Facts of the case<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n<p>The plain\u00adtiff received insti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal fund\u00ading from the defen\u00addant for 2017. At the end of 2017, the plain\u00adtiff\u2019s gen\u00ader\u00adal meet\u00ading decid\u00aded not to apply for any fur\u00adther insti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal fund\u00ading. Short\u00adly there\u00adafter, the plain\u00adtiff com\u00admis\u00adsioned a third GmbH \u2014 with\u00adout con\u00adduct\u00ading a pro\u00adcure\u00adment pro\u00adce\u00addure \u2014 to car\u00adry out press work from Jan\u00adu\u00adary 1, 2018.  <\/p>\n\n<p>In Octo\u00adber 2018, the plain\u00adtiff sub\u00admit\u00adted an appli\u00adca\u00adtion for rein\u00adstate\u00adment of insti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal fund\u00ading with retroac\u00adtive effect for the entire year 2018. After pre\u00adlim\u00adi\u00adnary dis\u00adcus\u00adsions between the plain\u00adtiff and the defen\u00addant, the plain\u00adtiff received pos\u00adi\u00adtive news: The defen\u00addant approved the appli\u00adca\u00adtion with a deci\u00adsion dat\u00aded Decem\u00adber 19, 2018. The dis\u00adburse\u00adment of the funds was sub\u00adject to the \u201cGen\u00ader\u00adal ancil\u00adlary pro\u00advi\u00adsions for grants for insti\u00adtu\u00adtion\u00adal fund\u00ading\u201d (ANBest\u2011I for short).  <\/p>\n\n<p>In 2020, the proof of use was reviewed by the defen\u00addant. In July 2022, the author\u00adi\u00adty par\u00adtial\u00adly revoked the approval notice and demand\u00aded a refund of around EUR 13,700. The rea\u00adson for this was, among oth\u00ader things, the direct com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00ading of the GmbH with\u00adout a com\u00adpet\u00adi\u00adtive pro\u00adce\u00addure. The plain\u00adtiff then filed an action against the repay\u00adment notice.   <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Key point of the deci\u00adsion<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n<p>The VG Gie\u00dfen rec\u00adog\u00adnized the objec\u00adtive vio\u00adla\u00adtion of the pub\u00adlic pro\u00adcure\u00adment law pro\u00advi\u00adsions of ANBest\u2011I as suf\u00adfi\u00adcient for a revo\u00adca\u00adtion. The court clar\u00adi\u00adfied: <\/p>\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The ANBest\u2011I also apply retroac\u00adtive\u00adly, as the fund\u00ading was approved for the entire year.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The fail\u00adure to car\u00adry out a pro\u00adcure\u00adment pro\u00adce\u00addure by direct\u00adly com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00ading the GmbH was a seri\u00adous breach of the applic\u00ada\u00adble pro\u00adcure\u00adment reg\u00adu\u00adla\u00adtions.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The revo\u00adca\u00adtion was time\u00adly, as the one-year peri\u00adod pur\u00adsuant to Sec\u00adtion 49 (3) sen\u00adtence 2 in con\u00adjunc\u00adtion with Sec\u00adtion 48 (4) HVwVfG only begins after the hear\u00ading pro\u00adce\u00addure has been com\u00adplet\u00aded.  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The author\u00adi\u00adty had exer\u00adcised its dis\u00adcre\u00adtion with\u00adout error of law.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<p>Sub\u00adjec\u00adtive cul\u00adpa\u00adbil\u00adi\u00adty is not required for the revo\u00adca\u00adtion to occur. The revo\u00adca\u00adtion is based on the objec\u00adtive breach of duty. The prin\u00adci\u00adple of good faith (Sec\u00adtion 242 BGB) also does not lead to the revo\u00adca\u00adtion being invalid in this case, as the author\u00adi\u00adty had express\u00adly reserved the right to a final review in the approval notice and it could not be con\u00adclu\u00adsive\u00adly clar\u00adi\u00adfied whether the author\u00adi\u00adty was aware of the direct com\u00admis\u00adsion\u00ading of the GmbH pri\u00ador to the approval of the fund\u00ading.    <\/p>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\">Tips for pub\u00adlic clients<\/h2>\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Ensure that ANBest\u2011I are ful\u00adly and clear\u00adly includ\u00aded in the case of retroac\u00adtive approval  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Care\u00adful\u00adly doc\u00adu\u00adment the audit pro\u00adce\u00addure and con\u00adsul\u00adta\u00adtion Ensure com\u00adpli\u00adance with the over\u00adrid\u00ading bud\u00adgetary prin\u00adci\u00adple of effi\u00adcien\u00adcy and econ\u00ado\u00admy  <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<h2 class=\"wp-block-heading\"><strong>Tips for bid\u00adders and fund\u00ading recip\u00adi\u00adents<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Pay atten\u00adtion to pos\u00adsi\u00adble retroac\u00adtive effects even when tem\u00adporar\u00adi\u00adly with\u00addraw\u00ading from fund\u00ading  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ensure com\u00adpli\u00adance with pub\u00adlic pro\u00adcure\u00adment law even in the case of sup\u00adpos\u00aded\u00adly \u201cfree\u201d com\u00admis\u00adsions if fund\u00ading is not ruled out in the long term  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ensure doc\u00adu\u00adment\u00aded con\u00adsent of the spon\u00adsor, do not assume tac\u00adit accep\u00adtance  <\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sub\u00admit where-used lists in good time and in full  <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On Decem\u00adber 11, 2023, the Giessen Admin\u00adis\u00adtra\u00adtive Court ruled (case no.: 4 K 1641\/22) that the sub\u00adjec\u00adtive ideas of the par\u00adties involved regard\u00ading com\u00adpli\u00adance with fund\u00ading require\u00adments are not rel\u00ade\u00advant. An objec\u00adtive breach of pub\u00adlic pro\u00adcure\u00adment law is suf\u00adfi\u00adcient for the revo\u00adca\u00adtion of a fund\u00ading approval. Our video dis\u00adcussing the judg\u00adment: Facts of the case [\u2026]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":33,"featured_media":22554,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"inline_featured_image":false,"wp_typography_post_enhancements_disabled":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[720,703,248,709],"tags":[819,824,826,828,827,820,822,823,821,812,825],"team_kategorien":[],"lexikon_kategorie":[201,199,721,206],"class_list":["post-23390","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-client","category-current-public-procurement-law-in-15-minutes","category-jurisdiction","category-public-procurement-law-in-general","tag-anbest-i","tag-direct-commissioning","tag-efficiency-and-economy","tag-funding-decision","tag-good-faith","tag-grant-law","tag-institutional-funding","tag-objective-breach-of-public-procurement-law","tag-retroactive-authorization","tag-subsidies","tag-where-used-list","lexikon_kategorie-legal-protection-in-the-procurement-procedure","lexikon_kategorie-principles-of-public-procurement-law","lexikon_kategorie-rights-protecting-bidders","lexikon_kategorie-suitability-criteria"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23390","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/33"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=23390"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23390\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":23393,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/23390\/revisions\/23393"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/22554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=23390"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=23390"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=23390"},{"taxonomy":"team_kategorien","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/team_kategorien?post=23390"},{"taxonomy":"lexikon_kategorie","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/abante.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/lexikon_kategorie?post=23390"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}