FresQ will have to pay back the 43 million euros they unjustly received in subsidies, according to the verdict of the CBb (the Dutch Commission for Appeal for business and industry), which became public (for unclear reasons) more than a year from this date.
In April 2017, the CBb decided that the withdrawal of recognition of grower’s association FresQ was justified. However, that doesn’t mean the case is closed, because subsidies have to be paid back based on that verdict. At least, according to the Ministry of Economic Affairs that granted the subsidies.
FresQ lodged an appeal, and the verdict recently became public. Conclusion: FresQ comes away empty-handed regarding all objections, and they have to pay back all subsidies received after the recognition was withdrawn, as well as any money received as EHEC support. The total amounts to 43 million euro.
The recognition as a grower’s association was withdrawn in 2017, shortly after the CBb ruled that the defendant (the Ministry of Economic Affairs) was right to accuse FresQ of gross negligence for the serious infringements that FresQ committed regarding the recognition criteria for producer’s organisations, and that withdrawal was justified in this case. The how and why of the withdrawal can be read in this (Dutch) article.
FresQ disagreed with reclamation
The recently published verdict is about the actual repayment of the obtained subsidies in 2010 (16.8 million), 2011 (17.7 million) and 2012 (6.0 million). FresQ lodged appeals against all individual reclamations, as well as against the reclamation of obtained EHEC subsidy (2.4 million).
They claimed, among other things, that rejection of the subsidies was ‘disproportionate and careless.’ “Because of the rejection of the applications, it was indicated FresQ should cease its activities. If it later would be assessed that the withdrawal of the recognition was unjustified, FresQ would no longer be viable due to the rejection of the subsidy applications. By granting the subsidies, FresQ could have maintained its organisation and try to become independent of European subsidies. That chance has been taken from the organisation. That is careless,” according to FresQ’s appeal.
Doubt regarding authority and obligation of Ministry of Economic Affairs
Furthermore, FresQ also doubted the obligation to reclaim (according to FresQ this should only have been necessary if the subsidies had been set too high), as well as the authority of the Ministry of Economic Affairs to do so.
They also claimed it wasn’t clear when the support should be paid back in articles used by the defendant. “The defendant unjustly didn’t use the space to only do that after withdrawal had become irrevocable. They should have used this space, so that FresQ could have built capital to meet any reclamation decisions and retain the organisation.”
All rejected subsidies justified
Two appeals were immediately declared inadmissible because of the missing grounds, and in case of reclamation of EHEC support money because FresQ no longer had an interest in the assessment of the appeal.
Regarding the other points of appeal, CBb decided that subsidy applications were justly rejected and that subsidies had to be reclaimed. The ministry as subsidy giver is even obliged to reclaim subsidies given, according to the CBb.
CBb doesn’t think FresQ wasn’t given chance to recover
The appeals put forward by FresQ were each negated by the CBb. According to the CBb, “just using the European subsidies for actions, regarded as subsidisable in principle, is no longer possible. That withdrawal of the recognition blocked the functioning as producer’s organisation as such, is therefore incorrect.”
FresQ’s appeal that the defendant should only have been allowed to impose an obligation for reclamation of just part of the support given, also failed, according to the CBb. “The retroactive withdrawal of the recognition of FresQ as a producer’s organisation means that FresQ no longer had any right to aid and that this aid was therefore unduly paid.”
It therefore now looks as if curators can start reclaiming the subsidy amounts mentioned, just over 43 million euro.
Please click here to view the verdict of 13 February 2018, which became public on 14 March 2019, and click here for the public bankruptcy report that was updated on 26 February 2019 (both links to Dutch articles).