THE BOTTOM LINE
- Timing is everything: The subsidy rules in effect when you apply are the ones that matter. A court has confirmed that subsequent, more favorable rule changes cannot be retroactively applied to your case.
- Mind the thresholds for bundled projects: Eligibility for one part of a subsidy (e.g., a battery) can be strictly conditional on meeting a minimum threshold for another part (e.g., charging stations). Relying on the total project value alone may not be enough.
- Applications are final post-deadline: You cannot materially amend an application after the submission window has closed, even during an appeal. Ensure your initial application is fully compliant and optimized.
THE DETAILS
A recent ruling from the District Court of The Hague provides a critical reminder for any business applying for government subsidies. The case involved a company seeking a grant under the Dutch scheme for private EV charging infrastructure (SPRILA). The company applied for a subsidy for both charging stations and a stationary battery. While the government approved a partial subsidy for the chargers (€10,848), it rejected the larger subsidy for the battery because the charger portion by itself failed to meet a required €25,000 minimum threshold—a prerequisite to unlock funding for the battery.
The core of the company’s appeal rested on a crucial timing issue: after it filed its application and subsequent objection, the subsidy rules were relaxed. The new rules allowed the combined subsidy value of both the chargers and the battery to count towards the €25,000 threshold, a condition the company would have met. The court, however, sided with the government. It ruled that for competitive subsidy schemes with a fixed budget and application period, fairness dictates that all applications within a single round must be judged by the exact same set of rules. This principle of legal certainty prevents a retroactive application of more lenient rules and ensures a level playing field.
The court also dismissed the company’s other arguments, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance. The company argued that the application form was confusing and that broader EU definitions of “charging infrastructure” supported their case. The court was unmoved, stating that the specific text of the national regulation is what governs, and any ambiguity in application forms does not override the law. The court further confirmed that the government was correct to reject the company’s attempt to amend its application during the appeal process, as this would have constituted a new application submitted outside the official timeframe.
SOURCE
Source: Rechtbank Den Haag (District Court of The Hague)
