Corona restart aid and final decision: no cooperation, no funding – and no limitation period

Subsidy law in mass proceedings on restart aid during the Corona pandemic: duty to cooperate, administrative practice and commencement of limitation period

In particular through restart aid and restart aid plus, the Corona economic aid measures have taken subsidy law into a new dimension. Millions of applications, billions of euros and a largely digitalized procedural management placed the approving authorities before structural challenges. With the judgment of 20 February 2026 (9 K 1677/25) on restart aid, the Administrative Court of Düsseldorf (VG Düsseldorf) has decided and clarified central principles on the duty to cooperate in the grant procedure, on the binding effect of the established administrative practice as well as on the commencement of the limitation period in respect of provisional approvals subject to reservation.

At its core, the matter concerns three legal key issues:

• May the authority refuse funding in the final decision in its entirety if the applicant fails to cooperate in the final settlement procedure?
• Can new factual submissions still be taken into account in the court proceedings?
• Does the limitation period for the repayment claim commence already with the provisional approval – or only with the final decision?

The court answers these questions with remarkable clarity in favour of the administration.

The precise subject matter: provisional approval of Corona restart aid, failure to cooperate, complete repayment

The plaintiff had in June and August 2021 applied via direct applications for the so-called restart aid as well as the restart aid plus. Both aids were approved in full – EUR 7,500 and EUR 4,500 respectively – but expressly subject to the reservation of final determination in the context of final settlement.

The relevant conditions required timely final settlement via the online portal and the provision of all documents relevant for inspection.

The plaintiff submitted the final settlements in good time. In October and November 2024, the district government (Bezirksregierung) repeatedly requested further documents via the application portal – in particular income statements, sales receipts and evidence of continuing business activities. At the same time, email notifications were sent to the email address provided by the plaintiff.

No response was made.

By final decisions of 21 and 23 January 2025, the authority refused funding in its entirety, replaced the provisional approval decisions and demanded repayment of the amounts already paid out as restart aid.

In the legal proceedings, the plaintiff argued that he had been abroad, had difficulties with ELSTER access and furthermore that the repayment claim was already barred by the limitation period.

The decision reasoning: strict line in grant law

Relevance of established administrative practice

The court first clarifies that in subsidy law, what matters decisively is the exercised administrative practice. According to this practice, final settlements are reviewed on a sample basis or in the event of grounds for review; if cooperation is lacking, complete rejection and repayment take place.

This practice is neither arbitrary nor disproportionate. Rather, it is objectively justified by:

• budgetary requirements for economic use of funds,
• the legitimate purpose of combating misuse,
• as well as the requirements of a mass procedure with millions of applications.

The duty to cooperate pursuant to § 26 Abs. 2 VwVfG NRW applies to the applicant in a particular way. Precisely in grant law, it lies within the applicant's sphere to present the requirements for funding completely and in a timely manner.

No consideration of new submissions in the legal proceedings

Particularly relevant for practice is the statement that according to established administrative practice, the assessment is based exclusively on the factual situation at the time of the administrative decision. New documents in the legal proceedings – in this case a business valuation – remain fundamentally disregarded.

This restriction is permissible. The state may classify and generalize in the area of voluntary subsidies. There is no entitlement to individual case correction.

Absence abroad provides no relief

The fact that the plaintiff was in the USA and raised difficulties with portal access does not constitute an atypical exceptional case. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure permanent access capability or at least to contact the approving authority immediately.

Repayment and limitation period: commencement only with the final decision

Of particular doctrinal significance is the examination of the limitation of the reimbursement claim under § 49a VwVfG NRW.

Although the reclaim entitlement arises retroactively under substantive law upon provisional approval, the commencement of the three-year knowledge-dependent limitation period by analogy to §§ 195, 199 BGB is, however, decisive with regard to when the claim can first be asserted.

This is only the case upon issuance of the final closing notice.

Before its issuance, a legal basis for payment exists in the form of the provisional approval notice; the reimbursement claim is therefore not enforceable and consequently cannot become time-barred.

Furthermore, the authority's power to replace a provisional administrative act with a final one, as a discretionary right, is not subject to limitation.

The view frequently held in practice that reclaims from Corona aid measures such as Neustarthilfe are "automatically time-barred after three years" therefore proves to be incorrect.

Systematic classification: grants and subsidies law as a regime of enhanced participation requirements

The decision illustrates structural peculiarities of subsidies law:

• These are voluntary state benefits, not entitlements.
• Judicial review is essentially limited to the observance of the principle of equality and the prohibition of obvious irrationality.
• The recipient of the grant is subject to enhanced obligations to cooperate and exercise due care.
• Procedural efficiency and budgetary clarity justify strict enforcement in mass proceedings.

The judgment is thus in line with higher court case law on binding effect of administrative practice and the restrictive consideration of subsequent arguments.

Concrete recommendation for applicants and companies

The decision clearly shows:

Anyone applying for public funding such as Neustarthilfe or Neustarthilfe Plus must actively accompany the procedure until final completion. A provisional approval subject to reservation is not a secure legal position.

Companies and solo self-employed persons should in particular:

• fulfil all cooperation requirements in a timely and complete manner,
• regularly monitor electronic communication channels,
• immediately notify and document technical access barriers,
• and have reclaim and limitation of actions issues reviewed by a lawyer at an early stage.

Particularly in the context of Corona aid, it is to be assumed that further review and reclaim proceedings will follow.

Our law firm AVANTCORE Rechtsanwälte in Stuttgart advises companies, freelancers and institutional grant recipients throughout Germany on public grants and subsidies law. We support you with:

• strategic support during final settlement and audit proceedings,
• defence against reclaim notices and interest assessments,
• enforcement of estoppel and considerations of reasonableness and fairness,
• and in administrative court proceedings including admission of appeal and constitutional complaint proceedings.

In subsidies law, the correct procedural strategy often determines significant economic consequences. Early legal support is therefore not a luxury, but an operational necessity.