Years after the payment of Covid-19 support, numerous businesses and self-employed people are facing demands for repayment. Jermaine Taylor speaks to Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Carl Nowak about unclear eligibility criteria, recent case law and the legal options available to those affected.
Funds that were paid out quickly and without red tape in 2020 are now, in some cases, being reclaimed years later. Businesses, the self-employed and cultural organisations are having to contend with extensive documentation requirements, unclear eligibility criteria and recovery notices.
In the latest episode of our HÄRTING|fm anniversary series marking the firm’s 30th anniversary, Dr Martin Schirmbacher and Carl Nowak speak to Jermaine Taylor, an associate in HÄRTING’s litigation team, about the legal challenges involved in the recovery of COVID-19 aid.
The focus is on the various support schemes, including emergency aid, bridging aid and restart aid, as well as the question of under what conditions authorities may reclaim aid that has already been paid out. In particular, the discussion centres on the difference between withdrawal and revocation, changing eligibility criteria and the significance of administrative procedure law.
Drawing on recent case law, the three discuss how far official investigations may go. One example is a ruling by the Düsseldorf Administrative Court, which challenged a demand for repayment of around 75,000 euros on the grounds of allegedly illegible documents and deemed the authority’s actions to be arbitrary.
The programme also examines the varying practices regarding recovery claims across the federal states and how those affected should respond to letters of hearing and recovery notices.
An episode on the legal limits of state recovery claims and the question of why it can be worthwhile to have official decisions critically reviewed.