The article presents the results of the author’s scientific research conducted in the field of qualification of the legal nature of decisions taken in competitive proceedings in the area of direct management of the European Union and justifies on theoretical grounds the inadequacy of applying the institution of administrative recognition in the process of doctrinal qualification of the substantive decisions in competitive proceedings. The essence of the competition procedure is the free or bound evaluation of the evidence contained in the content of the competition project, the consequence of which is the creation of a ranking list of projects. This essence is not changed by the normative or doctrinal incorporation of the competition into the framework of administrative proceedings. As has been shown, the construction of administrative recognition is not used at all in the process of evaluating competition projects.

Given the dilemmas related to the lack of well-established rules of conduct in the event of a combination of premises underlying proceedings aimed at protecting the EU's financial interests, the commented judgment has become a convenient pretext for presenting conclusions resulting from the analysis of the legal nature of the construct normatively known as suspicion of financial fraud, in the context of certain grounds for excluding a contractor from the proceedings procurement and formulating recommendations for the practice of obtaining and spending European funds in the 2021–2027 financial perspective.

The commented judgment concerns the assessment of compliance with the Constitution of the Republic of Poland of the interpretation of provisions regulating the scope of jurisdiction of administrative courts in the scope which does not allow for the control of the activities of a public authority in the subject of an open tender for the performance of a public task under the provisions of the Act of 24 April 2003 on public benefit activities and about volunteering. The author criticizes the legal nature of the competition activities adopted by the Constitutional Tribunal prior to the conclusion of the subsidy agreement and formulates arguments pointing to the contradiction of the Tribunal's ruling with the one expressed in Art. 45 of the Constitution, the right to have a case heard by a competent court.